APPLIED PSYCHOLOCY: HEALTH AND WELL-BEING, 2009. 1(3). 303-320doi:10. Ill l/j. I 758-0854.2009.01018.x

If One is Looking for Meaning in Life, Does itHelp to Find Meaning in Work?

Michael F. Steger* and Bryan J. DikColorado State University, USA

People experience well-being at both global (hfe) and domain (e.g. careers)levels, and presumably people experience meaning on both levels as well. Twostudies assessed whether finding meaning on one level “satisfies” people’s searchfor meaning at the other level. Study I assessed this question by analysingsurvey responses from 231 undergraduate students, finding a significant interaction such that people seeking global-level meaning in life reported greaterwell-being and self-efficacy in choosing a career if they experienced domain-level meaning in their careers. Study 2 used both calling-focused and traditionalcareer workshops in an effort to experimentally induce a sense of domain-levelmeaning in careers in a sample of9l undergraduate students. There was a trendfor people seeking global-level meaning in life to report greater reductions indepressive symptoms and increased domain-level meaning in their careers following the workshops. Together these studies suggest that people seekingglobal-level meaning in life are, indeed, satisfied by experiencing meaning intheir careers. We discuss these results in terms of how career and workplaceinterventions might be tailored according to how intently people are seekingmeaning.

Keywords: calling, domain satisfaction, meaning in life, meaningful work,vocation

INTRODUCTION

Many psychologists have argued that deriving meaning from life experiencesis essential I’or psychological health (e.g. King, Hicks, Krull, & Del Gaiso,2006; RyuT& Singer, 1998), yet surprisingly little is known about how peopledo this. One pcrspcctive has drawn attention to the specific sources ofmeaning people identify in their lives. For example, some people feel thatraising their children, volunteering at a hospital, or being good at their workgives them a sense of meaningfulness that pervades the rest of their lives. It

Address for correspondence: Michael F. Steger. Department of Psychology. Colorado StateUnivercity. 1876 Campus Delivery. Fort Collins, CO 80523-1876. USA. Email:inichaeLLsieger(yahoo.eom

© 2009 The Authors. Journal compilation ©: 2009 International Association of AppliedPsychology. Published by Blackssell Publishing l.td.. 9600 Garsington Road. Oxford 0X4 2DQ.UK and 350 Main Street. MaIden, MA 02148. USA.

304 STEGER AND DIK

may be that experiences that impact these sources of meaning have particularimportance For people’s judgments of the meaning they experience in theirlives as a whole (Krause, 2004). Sources of meaning are typically categorisedinto important domains of meaning (e.g. Prager, 1998), and whateverenhances or erodes people’s experiences in those domains may, in turn,enhance or erode the amount of meaning people experience in their lives as awhole. Examining meaning in specific life domains therefore holds promisefor understanding the origins of people’s perceived meaning in life. In thepresent study, we examined how people’s experiencing of meaning in life—and also their dedication to seeking meaning—was related to experiencingand seeking meaning in the career domain.

Research on life satisfaction and well-being has a fairly long history ofconsidering how experiences in life domains play into more global impressionsof well-being. One offshoot of this research has been the recognition that thecareer domain is highiy relevant to how many people make global judgmentsabout well-being in their lives as a whole (e.g. Cummins, 1996; Diener, Suh,Lucas, & Smith, 1999; Headey, Veenhoven, & Wearing, 1991; Rojas, 2006).For example, people who feel their psychological needs are met in theirworkplaces report higher self-esteem and less anxiety (Dcci et al., 2001). Thisfinding is an example of how domain-level experiences can influence global-level perceptions of well-being. It is also possible that the direction of influencecould run the other way. It is possible that generally happy people tend to havebetter experiences in every life domain. In terms of meaning, we must considerthe possibility that people who experience greater global-level meaning in lifeare more likely to experience greater domain-level meaning as well.

In the present research, we were interested in how people’s experiences withmeaning in their careers relate to their experiences with meaning in their livesas a whole. Recently, researchers have used the concept of calling to understand the role of work in well-being. In its broadest construal, calling refers tothe belief that one’s career provides meaningful and purposeful experiences,and serves a greater good (Dik & Dully, 2009; Hall & Chandler, 2005).Experiencing a calling is positively related to well-being (e.g. Wrzesniewski,McCauley, Rozin, & Schwartz, 1997). Baumeister (1991) proposed thatapproaching work as a calling enables work to satisfy several of people’sneeds for the experience of meaning in life. In other words, calling capturesthe essence of a “work-as-meaning” perspective that argues that meaningfulwork can provide a source of meaning in life. People who feel their work is acalling also feel their lives are more meaningful (Duffy & Sedlacek, 2007). Inthe present study, we used calling to assess career-level meaning. Thus, wewere concerned with the relations between domain-level meaning (i.e. calling)and global-level meaning (i.e. meaning in life).

However, the question of whether domain-level or global-level meaning ismore important to well-being is not constrained to meaning alone; influences

2009 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2009 International Association of AppliedPsychology.

WORK AS MEANING 305

on other indices of domain-level and global-level functioning are also relevant. This approach entails comparisons of how domain-level and global-level meaning are related to both domain-level variables such as on&sconfidence in making career decisions and global-level variables such as lifesatisfaction. For example, career-level meaning might be related to bothcareer decision-making confidence and life satisfaction, but global-levelmeaning might only be related to life satisfaction. In this example, thispattern of findings would suggest that career-level meaning is more influential. We examined the pattern of these relations to give us another way toevaluate whether meaning wells up from life domains or trickles down fromglobal impressions of meaning in life as a whole.

Research on meaning in life has established that how much people experience meaning is fairly independent of how dedicated they are in seekingmeaning (e.g. Steger, in press). The experiencing dimension concerns peoplesperceptions of the presence of meaning in their lives. Presence of meaning hasbeen defined as the extent to which people feel their lives matter and makesense to them on a subjective level (King et al., 2006). The motivationaldimension concerns the degree to which people seek meaning in life. Thissearch for meaning has been defined as the strength with which people arctrying to establish and/or augment their sense of whether their lives matterand make sense to them (Steger, in press). The relation between seekingand experiencing meaning is complex, Factor analytic and multitraitmultimethod matrix evidence suggest that search for meaning and presence ofmeaning are distinguishable, both contemporaneously and longitudinally(e.g. Steger. Frazier, Oishi, & Kaler, 2006: Steger & Kashdan, 2007).Although people searching for meaning might generally be expected to find it,evidence from the most comprehensive investigation of this relation to datehas suggested that deficits in meaning spark people to search for meaning(Steger, Kashdan, Sullivan, & Lorentz, 2008). Hence, it is not clear underwhich circumstances searching for meaning might lead to experiencing moremeaning. Just as people may experience meaning on both global and domain-specific levels, they may seek meaning on both levels as well. For example.people lacking meaning in life in general might seek meaning in their careerpursuits. This question—-whether people seeking meaning in life can be satisfied (in terms of higher well-being) by experiencing meaning in their careers,or vice versa—-is the centerpiece of the present studies.

We used two studies to examine the interplay of domain-level meaning andglobal-level meaning in life, t’ocusing on the career domain in two samples ofcollege students. It is reasonable to ask whether college students would havean understanding of career meaning. Many occupations require several yearsof professional training before the actual “job” can be started, and manypeople may feel “called” to a particular vocation from a relatively early age.Therefore, many students and pre-professionals engage in the profession for

.c’ 2009 Th Authors Journal compilation © 2009 International Association of AppliedPs,chology.

306 STEGEI AND DIK

years before earning their first paycheck, and one might suspect that a criticalmass of students are motivated in this engagement by uniquely meaningfulaspirations for their career lives. Accordingly, college students, through theirstudies, experience career-relevant meaning. Furthermore, given that a critical developmental task of young adulthood is choosing an occupation(Arnett, 2000), we suspect that seeking meaningful work is a particularlysalient concern for college students relative to other populations. Thus, weargue that college samples are appropriate for exploring basic questionsabout how life and domain meaning interact to influence well-being.

In Study 1, we surveyed college students on their global meaning andcareer meaning, and included measures of well-being (life satisfaction anddepression) and career attitudes (career decision efficacy). Both the domain-level and global-level measures we used to assess meaning captured theexperience of meaning as well as people’s seeking of meaning. Thus, in thisstudy, we focused on the relations of career and life meaning to each otherand to well-being and career attitudes. We also looked at whether seekingmeaning at one level, and experiencing meaning at the other level, was relatedto well-being and career attitudes.

In Study 2, we took a close look at the interaction of seeking and experiencing using an experimental design in which college students attended careerworkshops. The workshops were thought to provide some degree of careermeaning, so we were interested in whether people seeking global meaning inlife would respond to this domain-level intervention more positively.

STUDY 1

Study 1 focused on ways in which global-level and domain-level meaning arerelated to each other, and to well-being and career attitudes, using a surveymethod in a college student sample. Because participants were college students, and we did not expect them to be employed in their desired occupation,we chose career decision efficacy as the indicator of career-domain functioning. Students with high levels of career decision efficacy exhibit greaterengagement with career exploration activities (Gushue, Scanlan, Pantzer, &Clarke, 2006) and have greater career-related confidence (Paulsen & Betz,2004). Those in our sample with greater career decision efficacy can beexpected to be more effectively engaged in efforts to identify and pursue acareer. Thus, career decision efficacy is an appropriate measure of positivecareer attitudes.

Method

Participants. A total of 231 introductory psychology students from theUniversity of Minnesota (M age = 19.7, SD 2.8; 74% female; 86%

s 2009 The Authors. Journal compilation 2009 International Association of AppliedPsychology.

WORK AS MEANING 307

European-American. 10% Asian-American, and 4% for all other ethnicities)completed a battery of questionnaires for course credit.

Procedures. Participants responding to a posted description of the studycontacted researchers by e-mail and were sent a URL/internet address forconsent materials and questionnaires.

Instruments. Meaning in Life: A short version of the Meaning in LifeQuestionnaire (Steger et al., 2006) was used in this study, consisting of athree-item presence of meaning items subscale (e.g. “I understand my life’smeaning”; “My life has a clear sense of purpose”; a= .81) and a lIve-itemsearch for meaning subscale (e.g. “I am searching for meaning in my life”;a = .89).

calling: Using the Brief Calling Scale (BCS; Dik, Sargent, & Steger, 2008),the presence of a calling was assessed with two items (“1 have a calling to aparticular kind of work”; “I have a good understanding of my calling as itapplies to my career”) rated from 1 (not at all true of me) to 5 (totally true ofme). Seeking a calling was assessed using two items (“I am trying to figure outmy calling in my career”; “I am searching for a calling as it applies to mycareer”) on the same 5-point scale. Similar to Dully and Sedlacek (2007),evidence of internal consistency of scores was strong for both the callingsubscale (a = .88) and the calling-seeking subscale (a .85).

Career Attitudes: The short form of the Career Decision Self-Efficacy scale(CDSE; Betz, Klein, & Taylor, 1996) was used to measure efficacy expectations in relation to making decisions about career-related issues. Twenty-fiveitems are rated from 0 (no confidence at all) to 9 (complete confidence).Evidence for the reliability and validity of CDSE short-form scores are wellestablished (e.g. Bctz ct al., 1996). Total score internal consistency reliabilityfor the present sample was cx= .91.

Well-Being: The Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS; Diener, Emmons,Larson, & Griffin, 1985) is a widely used and well-validated measure of lifesatisfaction. Five items are rated from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (stronglyagree) (a .90). The SWLS has good reliability and substantial convergentand discriminant validity (Pavot & Diener, 1993).

The depression subscale of the Brief Symptom Inventory (Derogatis &Spencer, 1982) is a brief measure of depression symptoms. The intensity of sixdepression symptoms (e.g. “feeling blue”) is rated from 0 (not at all) to 4(extremely) (a = .88).

Results

Descriptive statistics for all scales are presented in Table 1, and correlationsamong the meaning, well-being, and career variables arc shown in Table 2.

2009 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2009 International Association of AppliedPsychology.

> C 0 0 C 0 0 DZ 0 C C ‘C a C 0 C > 0 0 0 C 0 > 0 0 a C-C

oC ‘C

0T

AB

LE

1S

cale

Mea

ns

and

Sta

ndar

dD

evia

tio

ns

(.*)

U)

—1 m

Stud

t’2

C) mC

otit

rol

(‘on

diti

on

z30

Q

Stu

dy2

Stu

dy2

Stu

dy2

Sial

tSt

udy

1(i

ota?

Stam

p/c.

(Cal

ling

Con

diti

on)

(Ira

dit

ional

Con

diti

on,

N.2

3191

2833

Cal

ling

(Tim

e1)

6.0

(2.1

)6.

2(1

.9)

6.2

(1.8

)’6.

0(2

.lr

6.3

(1.9

)’C

alli

ng(T

ime

2)..

6.9

(1.5

)7.

0(1

.4)’

6.8

(1.5

)’6.

8(1

.5)’

(‘ai

ling

-See

king

(Tim

eI)

5.6

(2.3

)6.

6(2.

(6.

7(2

.2)’

6.1

(I9)

57.

1(2

.0)’

(‘ai

ling

-See

king

(Tim

e2)

—6(

1(2

.3)

5.5

(18)

’5.

9(2

.7(’

6.7

2.7

’SW

LS

(Tim

el

25.7

(5.6

)SW

LS

(Tim

e2)

..

25.4

(4.8

)25

.0(4

.5)’

25.7

(5.4

)’25

.7(4

.5)’

Dep

ress

ion

(Tim

e1)

11.0

(4.6

)9.

8(2

.9)

9.5

(2.9

)’97(3

5)’

10.4

(53)

’D

eprc

ssio

n(T

ime

2)8.

913

.7)

8.6

(3.6

)’8.

4(3

.0)’

9.8

(4.3

)’(‘

DS

I(T

ime

I)14

93

(22.

3)—

CD

SF

(Tim

e2

..

154.

4(2

5.’)

)59

.3(2

6.4)

’15

6.1

(24.

6)’

1469

(26.

0)’

ML

Q-P

rese

nce

(Tun

e1)

t14

.2(3

.4)

14.0

(3.4

)14

.6(2

.5)’

13.4

(3Sf

’14

.2(3

.8)’

ML

Q-P

rcse

nce

(Tim

e2)

t23

4(6

.7)

15.0

(2.8

)15

.7(2

.8)’

14.4

(34)

’15

1(2

.4)’

ML

Q-S

earc

lt(T

ime

I)—

25.4

(6.1

)25

.0(7

.0)’

24.5

(6.5

1’26

.4(4

.7)’

ML

Q-S

earc

lt)T

ttn

2)-

22.1

(3.6

)22

.3(3

.6)’

22.0

(3.6

)’22

.4(3

.6)’

C

No

.M

LQ

Mea

ning

inL

ife

Que

stio

nnai

re;

SWL

S=

Satis

fact

ion

wit

hLi

feS

cale

;C

DSE

=C

aree

rD

ecis

ion

Self-

Effic

acy.

Siu

th2

go

upfi

rms

tsit

hdi

lk-r

eim

isu

pc-r

scm

ipt.

dilT

ei-

atih

epn

.05

leve

lm

ilsig

nific

amic

e,us

ing

Lea

stSi

gnif

ican

tD

iffe

renc

epo

st-h

ocC

(ili

ip.t

risO

fls.

The

use

o/h

old

lacclt

trS

tudy

2gr

oup

in-a

n’in

dica

tes

thai

ther

ear

esi

gnif

ican

tdi

ffer

ence

she

m’e

enli

me

Ian

dli

me

2on

that

vana

hic

usin

gpa

ired

-sam

ple

i-te

st. p

<IS

Ital

ics

indi

cate

dtft

cren

ces

that

are

stit

nili

cant

atm

itep

.10

leve

l.l’

hree

rem

iss.

53

—

(ail

ing

Seek

ing

Cal

ling

ML

Q-P

reie

,ire

tM

LQ

-Sea

rch

SW

LS

Dep

re.c

sinn

CD

SE

(ail

ing

._.4

0***

.42*

**.1

2.1

7—

.20+

(‘al

ling

-Sec

king

—,

135’

—.2

031

—.11

.15

ML

Q-P

icse

ncct

—.2

9’00

50**

*39

***

ML

Q-S

earc

h.0

0.4

0*4*

.i3

**

—.2

0+.1

400

SW

LS

...

--

..

.24k

Dep

ress

ion

—.1

5.2

3*(‘

[)S

P—

——

Tim

e2

Cal

ling

5]*

—.2

03

34

*4

.07

——

.07

Tim

e2

(aH

ing-

See

king

—.3

2.5

5*

4*

20*

.06

Tim

e2

ML

Q-P

rcse

ncc

•33*

—.1

55J

***

—.1

5T

une2

ML

Q-S

earc

h.0

24i*

**

—.1

5.1

6[•

2S

WL

S.1

3—

.02

3i*

**

—.0

6T

ime

2D

epre

ssio

n334*4

00—

Tun

e2

CD

SE

—.1

8’.2

4*—.

.22*

..

.77

*4

*

231

br

Stud

yI;

NSI

tbr

Stud

y2.

j,v

.10:

*p

<.0

5;p

<.0

1;p

<.0

01.

Corr

elat

ion

coet

’tic

ient

sfro

mSt

udy

Iar

eab

ove

the

diag

onal

;co

rrel

atio

n

otf

ltett

tsfr

omS

tudy

2ar

eta

lici

sed

and

pres

ente

dbe

low

hedi

agon

al.

M1.

QM

eani

ngin

Lit

Que

smon

nare

;S

WI.

S.S

ausf

acm

ion

iidt

h1_

ifeSc

ale;

CD

SEC

aree

rl)

cem

sion

Sel

b.L

ttic

acy.

*Ib

ree

item

s.se

tle

not

adm

inis

tere

dat

lim

e1

inS

tudy

2.

0 7c

TA

BL

E2

Co

rrel

atio

ns

bet

wee

nC

alli

ngan

dM

eani

ngin

Lif

eV

aria

bles

and

Wor

k-R

elat

edV

aria

bles

C C C C C C ‘C C C C > C 0 Di C C C > It C.

U,

m 2 2 0 0 (D

310 STEGER AND DIK

Generally, the pattern of correlations suggests that for both experiencing andseeking dimensions, meaning in life is related to calling, but not so strongly tosuggest redundancy. Experiencing meaning at either the global or domainlevel was related to higher well-being and career decision efficacy, whereasseeking meaning at either level typically was associated with less well-beingand career decision efficacy. Correlations with well-being and career decisionefficacy appeared higher for meaning in life than for calling. To more formally test this observation, we used a series of regressions estimating thevariance in global and career functioning simultaneously accounted for byglobal and career meaning. These analyses provide an indication of whetherglobal meaning or career meaning had more consistent relations with wellbeing and career decision efficacy.

The first set of regressions focused on the experiencing dimension. In the firstregression (adjusted R2 = .24, F 37.13, p < .001), global meaning was significantly and positively related to SWLS scores (13 .50, p < .001), but careermeaning was not (13 = .00, us). In the second regression (adjusted R2 = .12.F= 16.25, p < .001), global meaning was negatively related to depression(13”—.39, p< .001), but career meaning was not (13= .11, ns). In the finalregression (adjusted R2 .13, F= 17.96, p < .001), both global meaning andcareer decision efficacy (13 = .29, p <.001) and career meaning were significantly and positively related to career decision efficacy (13 .15, p < .05). Thispattern of findings suggests that some matching may occur within domain, butthe consistency of significant relations for global meaning better supports thetop-down model within the experiencing dimension of meaning.

The second set of regressions focused on the seeking dimension. In the firstregression (adjusted R1 = .09, F= 12.16, p < .001), global meaning-seekingwas significantly and negatively related to life satisfaction (13 = —.25,p < .001),whereas career meaning-seeking was only marginally, negativeJy related tolife satisfaction (13=—.12, p< .10). In the second regression (adjustedR2 = .08, F= 10.10, p < .001), global meaning-seeking was significantly andpositively related to depression (13 = .26, p < .001), but career meaning-seeking was not (13 = .07, ns). In the final regression (adjusted R2 = .10,F= 13.33, p < .001), global meaning-seeking was marginally, negativelyrelated to career decision efficacy (13 = —.12, p < .10), whereas career meaning-seeking was significantly and negatively related to career decision efficacy(13 —.27, p < .001). From these resulis, it appears that within the seekingdimension, meaning was more closely matched within the same level (globalvs. domain). It appeared to matter where people sought meaning. Peopleseeking career meaning reported less career decision efficacy: people seekingglobal meaning in life reported less well-being.

Finally, we looked at whether experiencing meaning at one level (e.g.globally, in life) “satisfies” seeking meaning at the other level (e.g. in thecareer domain) in terms of higher well-being and career decision efficacy. To

© 2009 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2009 International Association of AppliedPsychology.

WORK AS MEANING 311

do this, we examined the interaction between seeking and experiencingmeaning acro,cs domain-specific and global levels using regression, followingguidelines for regression-based moderation analyses (Baron & Kenny, 1986).

The first series of regression addressed whether people seeking domain-level career meaning are better off if they experience global-level meaning inlife. We entered standardised calling-seeking and MLQ-P scores in the firststep of a regression, with their interaction term entered in the second step.Interactions did not predict experiencing calling (13=—.12, AR2 .01,LIF= 2.19, nc), life satisfaction (1 = .00, AR2 = .00, AF= .00, nc), or depression(13 —.03, AR2 = .00, ziF= .29, ns), although the interaction was significant forcareer decision efficacy (13 = —.13, AR2 = .02, AF 4.28, p < .05). Simple slopesanalysis (Aiken & West, 1991) indicated a stronger inverse relation betweenseeking career meaning and career decision efficacy among people experiencing high levels of global meaning (13 = —.31, p < .001) than among peopleexperiencing low levels of global meaning (13 —.09, p> .10). This means thatpeople seeking career meaning who experience global meaning in life aresurprisingly less confident about their ability to make career decisions. Thus,life meaning did not satisfy the search for career meaning.

The second series of regression addressed whether people seeking global-level meaning in life are better off if they experience domain-level careermeaning. We entered standardised Calling and MLQ-S scores in the first stepof a regression, with their interaction term entered in the second step. Incontrast to the previous analyses, most interactions were significant, with theinteraction of experiencing calling and seeking life meaning significantly predicting experiencing life meaning (13 = .15, AR2 .02, AF=6.7O,p < .001), lifesatisfaction (3 = .16, AR2 = .03, A.F= 6.63,p < .001), and career decision efficacy (13=13, AR1=.02, AF=3.97, p<.O5), but not depression (13=—.07,AR2 .01. AF= 1.11, nc). Simple slopes analyses indicated a weaker inverserelation between seeking global meaning and experiencing global meaningamong people experiencing high levels of career meaning (13 —.14, p < .05)than among people experiencing low levels of career meaning (13 = —.48,p < .001). Likewise, there was a weaker inverse relation between seekingglobal meaning and life satisfaction among people experiencing high levels ofcareer meaning (13 —.13, p < .10) than among people experiencing low levelsof career meaning (13 —.42, p < .001). Thus, experiencing meaning in workappeared to satisfy the search for global meaning in terms of global functioning. There also was a weaker inverse relation between seeking globalmeaning and career decision efficacy among people experiencing high levelsof career meaning (13 = —.04, p> .10) than among people experiencing lowlevels of career meaning (13 —.35, p < .00 1). Taken together these findingssuggest that if someone is seeking meaning in life, career meaning mayprovide an avenue for satisfying that search, yielding well-being, career-related efficacy, and even meaning in life.

C 2009 The Authors. Journal compilation 2009 International Association of AppliedPs chology.

312 STEGERANUDIK

Discussion

Global-level meaning in life and domain-level career meaning typically gohand-in-hand, and meaning in life is a stronger correlate of well-being andcareer decision efficacy than career meaning. At the same time, there was littleevidence that experiencing meaning in life played much of a role in satisfyingpeople’s search for meaning in their careers. Instead, results from Study 1suggested that it was more likely that people seeking meaning in their liveswere better off if they experienced meaning in their career pursuits. Becausethis study used survey responses collected at one point in time, ii is impossibleto know what kind of causal chain might link searching for meaning in life,experiencing meaning in career, and experiencing higher well-being. Therefore, we conducted a second study to allow us to test this causal model.

STUDY 2

One advantage of focusing on specific domains is that interventions are easierto conceptualise and conduct at the domain level than at the global level.People seeking meaning in life are faced with few identifiable routes toachieve meaning; global-level approaches would necessarily focus on theabstract concept of meaning in life, and emphasise experiencing meaning inlife. Some have argued that looking for global meaning in this manner is arecipe for meaninglessness (Bugental, 1965). In contrast, domain-specificapproaches would encourage people seeking meaning in their lives to focuson things that they can do in their careers that provide meaning. One advantage of a domain-specific approach, then, is that it provides people with moreconcrete ways to pursue meaning.

In Study 1, career meaning appeared to satisfy people seeking life meaning.To better test our causal proposition, in Study 2, levels of career meaning wereexperimentally manipulated using a calling-centered workshop. We predictedthat people high in the search for global meaning in life would report morepositive outcomes after the workshop than those low in this search.

However, a traditional career development workshop may also providework meaning-related benefits. We developed a second condition, followingthe parameters of a traditional career development workshop. This workshopwas designed to help participants gain knowledge about themselves, theworld of work, and procedures for effectively identifying and obtaining desirable employment. These three outcomes are analogous to the theoreticalunderpinnings of meaning in life (i.e. understanding self, world, and fit inworld; Steger, in press). Essentially, they, too, should provide participantswith work-related meaning. Thus, we combined both workshop conditions toexamine the interaction of global meaning-seeking and the induction ofdomain-level, career meaning.

2009 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2009 International Association of AppliedPsychology.

WORKAS MEANING 313

MethodParticipants. Participants were recruited from the 1.niversity of St

Thomas, using posted and e-mail newsletter-based advertisements and

in-class announcements. A total of9l participants (75% female; M age 20.3

years, SD 3.9; 88% European-American, 5% Asian-American, remaining

7% African-American, African, Asian or Pacific Islander, Hispanic, MiddleEastern, or declining to respond) completed all components of the study.

Procedure. Following recruitment, participants contacted researchers

by e-mail and were randomly assigned to one of three conditions: calling-

centered condition (n = 28), traditional career development condition

(n = 33), and wait-list control condition (n 30). Participants were then sent

an c-mail containing a study identification number and a IJRL/intcrnet

address for a page containing consent materials and the MLQ. This e-mail

also included instructions to attend a workshop (either the calling-centered or

traditional workshop, depending on condition assignment) or the statement

that the workshop was filled and that they would be contacted at a later date

(wait-list control). All workshops were held on the same day and consisted of

two separate one-hour sessions conducted one week apart. Both workshops

provided information about career development issues relevant to under

graduate students, an orientation to a person—environment fit approach to

finding a satisfying career, and the administration and group-based inter

pretation of a multidimensional vocational interest inventory. The

calling-centered workshop replaced some career development and person—

environment fit material with content focused on experiencing a sense of

greater purpose and altruistic concerns in work. Participants assigned to the

wail-list control condition completed post-experiment measures on the same

day as the second workshop sessions were conducted. For more details

concerning content, procedures, and compliance with condition, see Dik and

Steger (2008).

Instruments. Participants completed a web-based version of the MLQ

prior to participating in the intervention. As was the case in Study 1, we used

the three-item MLQ-P scale (a = .75) and the five-item MLQ-S (cx .86).

Following the intervention, participants completed paper-and-pencil ver

sions of the MLQ-P (cx = .76) and MLQ-S (cx .83), calling (cx .78), calling-

seeking (cx .77), depressive symptoms (cx = .87), SWLS (cx .82), and CDSE

(cx = .93).

Results

Scale means and standard deviations are presented in Table 1, and scaleintercorrelations are presented in Table 2.

‘ 2009 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2009 International Association of Applied

Psychology.

314 STEGER AND DIK

The basic question of this experiment was whether an individual’s searchfor global meaning could be satisfied by interventions that heightenedcareer meaning. We created effects codes to compare workshop (callingcentered and traditional workshops combined) versus the wait-list controlconditions. We assessed residualised change by regressing post-interventionfunctioning (i.e. Calling, MLQ-P, SWLS, Depression, and CDSE) on theeffects code and Time 1 MLQ-S scores, as well as Time 1 measures offunctioning when available, in step 1. Interaction terms for workshopeffects codes and MLQ-S scores and were entered in the second step, allowing for simultaneous comparisons of global seeking and domain seeking.Thus, these regressions provide highly conservative tests of whether theworkshops created changes in global and career functioning and whetherpeople high in global meaning-seeking reacted more strongly to theseinterventions.

In terms of experienced global meaning in life (13 —.06, AR2 = .02,4F= 2.53, nc), life satisfaction (13=—.09, AR2 = .01, AF= .52, nc), and careerdecision-making efficacy (j3 —.11, AR2 = .01, AF= .93, nc), people seekingmeaning in their lives did not experience a boost from the enhanced sense ofcareer meaning we thought would be produced by the career workshops.However, some encouraging trends did emerge from the data. People seekingglobal meaning trended toward a heightened experience of career meaning

(13 —.16, AR2 = .02, AF= 2.53,p .12), and compared to other participants,they showed marginally significant reductions in depressive symptoms

(13 .14, AR2 = .02, AF= 3.49,p < .10). These trends were particularly notablein light of how high global meaning-seeking participants fared in the controlcondition (Figure 1). People who were seeking meaning in their lives and wereassigned to the control condition seemed to suffer losses in their sense ofcareer meaning and advances in depression relative to similar people whowere assigned to the workshops.

Discussion

Study 2 tested whether people could satisfy their search for global meaning bybeing provided with an experimentally enhanced sense of career meaning.There was a tendency for meaning-seekers in workshop conditions to reportthe greatest increases in levels of calling, and the greatest reductions indepression. Unfortunately, these results were not significant at conventionallevels of statistical significance. Because of the small sample size and thenumber of correlated predictors used in the regression, statistical power is anissue in this study and as a result, possible Type 11 errors are a concern.Additionally, many of the ‘variables used to indicate post-workshop functioning have high levels of temporal stability and may be highly trait-like andresistant to change (Steger & Kashdan, 2007). Ii is possible that state versions

:c 2009 The Auihors. Journal compilation 2009 International Association of AppliedPsychology.

WORK AS MEANING 315

Pvotkshop 1L2_J

DWorkshopl

DCOntrol

FIGURE 1. Better outcomes among global meaning-seekers assigned toWorkshop Conditions than Control Conditions in calling (Panel A) anddepression (Panel B), Study 2.

of these measures would have indicated clearer effects of the workshop.

Nonetheless, there were some evocative indications that meaning-seekers

gained more from career workshops than did other participants, and more

than they did from the control condition.

Low Search

Panel A

High Search

Low Search

Panel

Higt Search

© 2009 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2009 International Association of AppliedPsychology.

316 STEGERANDDK

GENERAL DISCUSSION

We argued that meaning matters to people’s well-being, whether thatmeaning is experienced in specific life domains or in a person’s life as a whole,and further that relations among domain-specific and global meaning areimportant to understanding the origins of meaning. Taken together, the twostudies described here contribute to the literature showing that people’scareer attitudes are broadly related to their overall well-being. People whoapproached their careers as a calling reported greater meaning in life, lifesatisfaction, and career decision-making efficacy, and fewer depressive symptoms than those who did not approach their work as a calling, As a reflectionof career-related meaning, calling demonstrated a similar pattern of relationswith these variables as meaning in life did, and the dynamic between the twolevels of meaning warrants further empirical and theoretical investigation.

Because of the similarity in how global meaning and career meaningrelated to well-being and career decision efficacy, it was difficult to determinewhether either global- or career-level meaning was most closely tied to thesevariables. The regressions we conducted to address this question revealeddifferent pictures depending on which dimension of meaning (experiencingvs. seeking) was considered. In the experiencing dimension, global-levelmeaning in life was a more consistent predictor of life and work functioningthan career meaning. In contrast, in the seeking dimension, the level ofanalysis seemed important; seeking meaning at the career level was morestrongly tied to career decision efficacy, whereas seeking meaning at theglobal level was more strongly tied to well-being at the global level. Theseresults suggest an incremental benefit in identifying on which level people areseeking meaning—in careers or in life.

Beyond the question of how meaning in the career domain and globalmeaning in life were related to each other and to other variables, we wereinterested in whether people’s search for meaning at one level could beanswered by meaning experienced at the other level. Our most consistentfinding was that for those seeking global meaning in life, experiencing careermeaning improves well-being and people’s confidence in their career decisions. Support for this idea was seen most consistently in Study I, althoughthe trends observed in Study 2 were consistent. Although career-relatedinterventions consisting of four or five sessions are most effective (Brown &Ryan Krane, 2000), the two sessions used in Study 2 provided some evidencethat experimentally induced career meaning might help people seeking globallife meaning to increase career meaning and decrease depressive symptoms.

Future Research

The present research examined the intersection of two understudied constructs: search for meaning and calling. Although the search for meaning has

2009 The Authors Journal complation © 2009 Internalional Association of Apphed

Psychology.

WORK AS MEANING 317

long been regarded as important to human welfare, it has received limited

empirical scrutiny (Steger et al., 2008). The present findings add to a growing

body of evidence indicating that the search for meaning has important impli

cations for human functioning as a motivator. This basic existential motiva

tion also manifested in the work domain in the form of calling-seeking.

Analogous to global meaning-seeking, calling-seeking is related to less desir

able functioning in careers (Duffy & Sedlacek, 2007). However, future

research needs to explore the psychological features, origins, and conse

quences of seeking meaning in work and in life.The present study examined top-down and bottom-up dynamics in the

context of a single domain: career. It is likely that dynamics similar to those

identified here exist within other domains, such as relationships, religion,

health, and recreation. Other domains of meaning should therefore be exam

ined. Such research might proceed from an assumption of a hierarchical

structure to meaning, with domains of meaning constituting a lower level

beneath the broader experience of meaning in life as a whole. It is also

possible, and perhaps even likely, that interactions exist among domains. For

example, someone could experience a synergistic interaction of career, rela

tionships, and religion by pursuing work in a religious vocation (e.g. pastor,

priest, nun, choir director). Alternatively, someone could experience meaning

domain conflicts between career, health, and recreation by accepting a job

that consumes too much energy and time, leaving insufficient time for health-

supportive activities (e.g. jogging, swimming, working out). Assessing

meaning in multiple domains could reveal such synergistic or conflicting

dynamics.

Limitations

The present research was conducted with college students. The results are

encouraging and support the importance of examining work-related variables

among people who are preparing for work, rather than firmly entrenched

within enduring career paths. However, it is not clear whether the dynamics

uncovered would be the same among working adults. Perhaps for them, the

desire for meaningful work might be more easily satisfied by meaning expe

rienced in other domains such as parenting, religion, or leisure pursuits.

Working adults may have a less idealistic attitude toward work, viewing work

as a means to a paycheck rather than as a means to purpose in life. No

previous research has compared levels of work meaning between college

students and working adults, so such alternatives remain speculative.

A second limitation to the present research is the use of a measure of calling

as an indicator of work meaning. The MI.Q subscales could have been

adapted to ask simply about meaning in ivork rather than meaning in Iif’. We

regard the use of a calling measure as a conservative test of the relations

2009 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2009 International Association of Applied

PschoIogy.

318 STEGER AND 01K

between work meaning and life meaning in that the scale items do not share

similar linguistic stems. It is not clear to what degree calling is identical to

“work meaning”. Certainly, the notion of calling encompasses meaning in

work, but it also reflects other constructs as well, such as the presence of an

external summons (such as from God) to a career. Therefore, future research

should attempt to replicate the present findings using measures that allow

more parallel analyses across the global and domain-specific levels.This rcsearch also was limited in that the measures of positive functioning

on the global and career domain levels were not parallel to each other. On the

global level, we assessed depression and life satisfaction, whereas on the

career level we assessed career decision-making eflicacy. Because it was

unlikely that many in the present samples were working in their desired

careers, career decision-making efficacy provides a good indicator of how

well participants were functioning in terms of their career decision-making.

However, it may be that some of our findings were influenced by having

different outcome variables at the global and domain-specific levels. Future

research should incorporate parallel measures. For example, people could

indicate their satisfaction with important relationships, the level of stress they

experience, or how much autonomy they have both at work and in their lives

as a whole.Just as many people are highly motivated to search for meaning in their

lives, there are also people who are highly motivated to find meaningful work,

involvement in valued social causes, or ways to use their leisure time mean

ingfully. Others may be seeking ways in which they can establish romantic

relationships or start a family. The present studies suggest that experiencing

meaning in life as a whole may not adequately satisfy motivations for

meaning in specific domains. However, the potential exists for each of these

pursuits to provide people with meaningful experiences. Significant experi

ences in career, social, leisure, or relational domains might form the building

blocks of the purpose and coherence that Jend a meaningful structure to life,

and may provide glimpses of how our lives transcend chaos. The present

studies implicate seeking and experiencing meaning in life’s domains as

potential answers to the question of where meaning in life originates.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

This research was supported by a grant from the Lilly Foundation through

the John Ireland Initiative at the University of St Thomas.

REFERENCES

Aiken, L.S.. & West, S.G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting inter-

LU twos. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

ci 2009 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2009 International Association of Applied

Psychology.

WORK AS MEANING 319

Arnett, J.J. (2000). Emerging adulthood: A theory of development from the late teensthrough the twenties. American Psychologist, 55, 469—480.

Baron, R.M., & Kcnny, D.A. (1986). The moderator—mediator variable distinction insocial psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173--I 182.

Baumeister, RE. (1991). Meanings of life. New York: Guilford.betz, N.E., Klein, K.L., & Taylor, KM. (1996). Evaluation of a short form of the

Career Decision-Making Seif-Efllcacy Scale. Journal of Career Assessment, 4,47 57.

Brown, S.D., & Ryan Krane, N.E. (2000). Four (or five) sessions and a cloud of dust:Old assumptions and new observations about career counseling. In S.D. Brown &R . W. Lent (Eds.), Handbook of counseling psychology (3rd edn., pp. 740—766). NewYork: Wiley.

Bugental, J.F.T. (1965). The search jr authenticity. New York: Holt, Rinehart. &Winston.

Cummins, R. (1996). The domains of life satisfaction: An attempt to order chaos.Social Indicators Research, 3, 303--328.

Dcci, E.L., Ryan, R.M., Gagné, M., Leone, D.R., Ljsunov, J., & Kornazheva, B.P.(2001). Need satisfaction, motivation, and well-being in the work organizations of

a former Eastern bloc country: A cross-cultural study of self-determination.Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 930 942.

Derogatis, L.R., & Spencer, M.S. (1982). The Brief Symptom Inventory: Administraturn, Scoring and Procedures ?vfanual-I. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins UniversitySchool of Medicine, Clinical Psychometrics Research Unit.

Diener, E., Emmons, R.A., Larson, R.J., & Griffin, 5. (1985). The Satisfaction withLife Scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49, 71—75.

Diener, E., Suh, EM., Lucas, RE., & Smith, IlL. (1999). Subjective well-being:Three decades of progress. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 276—302.

Dik, B.J., & Dully, R.D. (2009). Calling and vocation at work: Definitions andprospects for research and practice. The Counseling Psychologist, 37, 424—450.

Dik, B.J., Sargent, A., & Steger, M.F. (2008). Career development strivings: Assessinggoals and motivation in career development. Journal of Career Development, 35,23 41.

Dik, B.J., & Steger, M.F. (2008). Randomized trial of a calling-infused career workshop incorporating counselor self-disclosure. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 73,203--21l.

Dully, R.D., & Sedlacck, W.E. (2007). The presence of and search for a calling:Connections to career development. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 70, 590—-60 I.

Gushue, G.V., Scanlan, K.R.L., Pantzer, K.L., & Clarke, C.P. (2006).The relationship of career decision-making self-efficacy, vocational identity, and career exploration behavior in African American high school students. Journal of Career

Development, 33, 19 28.Hall, t).T., & Chandler. D.E. (2005). Psychological success: When the career is a

calling. Journal of Organi;arional Behavior, 26, 155 176.Headey, B.. Veenhoven, R., & Wearing, A. (1991). Top-down versus bottom-up

theories of subjective well-being. Social Indicators Research. 24, 8 1—100.

:, 2009 The Authors. Journal compilation i 2009 International Association of AppliedPsychology.

320 STEGER AND DIK

King, LA., Hicks, iA., Krull, iL., & Del Gaiso, AK. (2006). Positive affect and the

experience of meaning in life. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90,

179-196.Krause, N. (2004). Stressors arising in highly valued roles, meaning in life, and the

physical health status of older adults. Journal of Gerontology: Social Sciences, 5911,

S287—S297.Paulsen, AM., & Betz, N.E. (2004). Basic confidence predictors of career decision-

making self-efficacy. Career Development Quarterly, 52, 354—362.

Pavot, W., & Diener, E. (1993). Review of the Satisfaction with Life Scale. Psycho

logical A cse.ccnu’nt, 5. 164—172.Prager, F. (1998). Observations of personal meaning sources For Israeli age cohorts.

Aging & Mental Health, 2, 128 I 36.Rojas, M. (2006). Life satisfaction and satisfaction in domains of life: Is it a simple

relationship? Journal of Happiness Studies, 7, 467—497.

Ryff, C.D., & Singer, B. (1998). The contours of positive human health. Psychological

Inquiry, 9, 1—28.Steger, M.F. (in press). Meaning in life. In S.J. Lopez (Ed.), Handbook of positive

psychology (2nd edn.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Steger, M.F., Frazier, P., Oishi, S., & Kaler, M. (2006). The Meaning in Lfe Ques

tionnaire: Assessing the presence of and search for meaning in life. Journal of

Counseling Psychology, 53, 80 93.Steger, M.F., & Kashdan, TB. (2007). Stability and specificity of meaning in life and

life satisfaction over one year. Journal of Happiness Studies, 8, 161—179.

Steger, M.F., Kashdan, T.B., Sullivan. B.A., & Lorentz, D. (2008). Understanding the

search for meaning in life: Personality, cognitive style, and the dynamic between

seeking and experiencing meaning. Journal of Personality. 76, 199—228.

Wrzesniewski, A., McCauley, C.. Rozin, P., & Schwartz, B. (1997). Jobs, careers, and

callings: People’s relations to their work. Journal oJ Research in Personality, 31,

2 1—33.

.C 2009 The Authors. Journal compilation .c 2009 International Association of Applied

Psychology.